Before it came along, we were served by a revolving series of moral panics, changing censorship ministers and a patchwork of different state systems. Many books and films were banned that today would hardly warrant a mention - I wonder how many high schools would not allow "The Trial of Lady Chatterley" a place in their libraries? In the sordid history of censorship in Australia, the creation of a national system under the Hawke government in 1984 at least gave us something that was uniform and understandable, and led to a slight loosening of a system that was much more puritanical than the citizens it served.

Our classification code has done its duty for these last 30 years or so. As a reward, it deserves to be given a nice cup of hot chocolate, and wheeled outside to enjoy the sunshine of its retirement.

Recent debates over the classification of computer games and internet content have revolved around the edges of the classification scheme - what content goes into which rating. But these sorts of debates are missing the bigger picture. The future of classification itself must now be doubted.

As we all know, under a classification-based scheme, new content is reviewed by a government censor before it can be sold in the Australian market. Once it gets the nod - that is, the content is deemed to fall into one of the defined categories - the distributor or producers of the content can start sending boxes of books, videos, DVDs or film reels off to where the public can buy them. And the censors have been busy, reviewing thousands of such pieces of content every year.

Anyone who has used the Internet, however, will immediately spot some problems with this approach. As content is distributed digitally, there's often no longer an "Australian market", just a web server somewhere on the net. There's no "importing" - just bits moving around on fibre. And there's no "before" - as soon as content is ready, it's published and available.

Just counting web pages alone, there are over a trillion pieces of content, and they change every day. Even the Chinese government can't manually examine every web page, or even a tiny fraction of what's out there. The facts are undeniable: A significant portion - soon the majority - of content Australians consume is simply beyond of the reach of Australian censors.

As the central tenets of classification are made obsolete by the digital distribution of all sorts of content, discussing the borders between MA- and R-rated content is a waste of time. We should be discussing whether we need a Classification Board at all.

Think of the classification staffers who right this minute are trawling through adult DVDs, looking for sex acts that might, technically, push the movie from X-18+ to "refused classification". Then, consider the internet. Whether we like it or not, it's impossible to reconcile these two worlds in a way that makes the former's job meaningful, efficient or beneficial to society.

If classification is to go, what do we put in its place? There may be no clear answer, but to attempt it, we first must ask what the censorship system does for us.

One important benefit of the classification system is that it helps consumers know what they are getting. Parents can see, at a glance, that a movie is suitable for their small children to watch. (Others can make sure that the content they bring home will not be boringly tame.)

Do we need Government to provide this service? In the United States, it is the film and games industries that bestow ratings, not the government. It is in the interests of both the public and the industry that consumers get accurate information on the content they purchase.

If you question whether this could work, turn on your television. Our TV networks don't submit each of their programs to the classification board, but abide by industry codes of practice. While complaints arise, they are relatively rare - at least, Big Brother aside, there is no mainstream outcry at the laxness of TV ratings.

The other benefit - or supposed benefit - of censorship is protecting us from harmful or immoral content. This line of thinking has a long pedigree, going back to the 19th century when information on contraception was banned and seized on the docks. But do we as a nation still expect our government to safeguard our morals? Can exposure to some forms of content - accidental or otherwise - really break our moral compass?

In the digital age, the answers to these questions might well be rendered moot by technical realities. Certainly, some sorts of content, such as child pornography, must remain illegal. But this is not the sort of content that would ever be submitted to the Classification Board for rating. Crime must remain crime. There is room for legitimate debate about hate speech, defamation, and other types of content we may wish to outlaw.

In any case, it is encouraging that we are finally having this debate, though it comes not a moment too soon. The government is pursuing an internet filter that cannot work. Some mainstream computer games are banned while hundreds of thousands of others go unrated. In an NBN-enabled future, watching a movie brought home in a box will soon seem quaint.

But perhaps the most fundamental shift is the target of censorship. In the past, it is movie studios, DVD distributors and publishers whose products have been censored, and must navigate a course through classification. In an age where you yourself can write a blog post or record a video, and instantly become the producer, publisher and worldwide distributor of your content, censorship is an issue that could affect you directly.

Whatever comes next, we need to do it right.

Colin Jacobs is Chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia. The Classification system is being reviewed and public comments on the terms of reference are open until 28 January. You can register yours, here.

Actions

Share

How Does this Site Work?

This site is where you will find ABC stories, interviews and videos on the subject of Technology and Games. As you browse through the site, the links you follow will take you to stories as they appeared in their original context, whether from ABC News, a TV program or a radio interview. Please enjoy.